Originally Posted by gemy (Post 3268135)

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: Thank God the voice of reason.

I tried to post earlier but I somehow erased my post

Here it is again.

The Yorkshire Terrier faces serious challenges today. Health issues are of deep concern. Where is the registry for LS dogs for example. How close are we to identifying the gene and or genes responsible for LS?
Bybers, and Puppy Mills are churning out so very bad representatives of the breed, and never a genetic test done. God help us.

The breed clubs has an overwhelming real and deep concern as to what is happening with our beautiful tan and blue standard Yorkie.

Until we (collectively) get these health concerns under control, the paramount duty of the club as I see it, is to strive forward with research, to try and curb somehow these bybers, and to safeguard the health, the temperament of our beautiful breed.

Until progress is made on these fronts, I'm sorry to say ethical Parti breeders, there just will not be any receptance to your plea for full parti recognition.

I do encourage you to promote genetic health testing, in fact to mandate that as part of an ethical breeders membership in your club.

Originally Posted by Brooklynn (Post 3268179)

There are bad breeders within every breed whether one shows or not. There are bad breeders that show and they are bad breeders that breed off colored dogs...no way around it...
Health should be the #1 concern and priority period :) But always remember we can only do the best we can and unfortunately one can't not garnuantee with absolute certainty all will be healthy until the genetic marker for LS is identified and when something pops up it's taken care of and the breeding pair is eliminated out of the breeding program. It's all in what a breeder does when something happens and how they stand behind their breedings :)

I think I've stated before if I wanted a tri-colored dog or Parti I would be in another breed but my preference. I just hope all that does breed does it the right way and correct way and has that animal as it's #1 priority and it's best interest at heart and not for profit.

Originally Posted by Breezeaway (Post 3268186)

Who could not love a face like this?:)

Originally Posted by Woogie Man (Post 3268086)

Quote:
Originally Posted by peachbongi
Going from caves to where we are today has been pain staking. It was not done over night. There were mistakes made along the way.

I am simply stating that are we willing to take that risk? We are already out of the cave.

Have we REALLY seen Biewers and Partis long enough to know of any hidden dangers? Again, if you research the history of the Yorkie you will know the breed was not come about over night. We are talking hundreds of years.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Quote: Originally posted by Elle
I'm glad you brought that up. You talk about changing our standard. Standards are almost never changed. You are asking us to change it to alter to to allow something we do NO want in our breed.


Last and most important because you just are not getting this. We are not in a cave, it's not us, it's is YOU that won't listen. We just changed our standard. We just changed it. We just changed it intentionally to make sure that you would know: we do NOT WANT any kind of white dog in our ring. There is nothing more to talk about. You are intentionally breeding a faulted dog for profit. Sugar coat it with the finest sugar cane you still have a disqualified dog. Sneak it in, dye it, whatever the horrible ethics drive you to do. You still have a dog that isn't accepted by any of the hundreds of thousands of people in the dog fancy. Not so ingenious, just another person looking for the shortcut in life.

Showing our breed is difficult. It's hard to do. I've yet to find a real show person interested in this white dog. It's just to sell puppies.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not trying to add to the argument but, Elle, I think Peachbongi was advocating for NOT changing the standard to allow variations. If you re-read her post, I think it was in reply to someone who is for changing.

Originally Posted by Elle (Post 3268026)

I'm glad you brought that up. You talk about changing our standard. Standards are almost never changed. You are asking us to change it to alter to to allow something we do NO want in our breed.


Last and most important because you just are not getting this. We are not in a cave, it's not us, it's is YOU that won't listen. We just changed our standard. We just changed it. We just changed it intentionally to make sure that you would know: we do NOT WANT any kind of white dog in our ring. There is nothing more to talk about. You are intentionally breeding a faulted dog for profit. Sugar coat it with the finest sugar cane you still have a disqualified dog. Sneak it in, dye it, whatever the horrible ethics drive you to do. You still have a dog that isn't accepted by any of the hundreds of thousands of people in the dog fancy. Not so ingenious, just another person looking for the shortcut in life.

Showing our breed is difficult. It's hard to do. I've yet to find a real show person interested in this white dog. It's just to sell puppies.

Originally Posted by topknot (Post 3268180)

Without snow - these little guys would not make it well in the wild - too easy for prey to get them. They need the protection if they are going to survive.

The main thing here is that we are not scientists with degrees in genetics. We can study this topic as novices, but unitil we have a doctrine in this field we are playing with somethings we just do not know much about - reason we have a standard and should be health testing our dogs. Yes, health should always be number one concern, and IMHO - genetics is included in this area.

Originally Posted by Elle (Post 3268205)

Your opinion means nothing to me and hundreds of thousands of people that care about the history and future of the breed.

It's just your opinion to me because I don't want to buy a puppy. :rolleyes:


Here's more information on this parti dog.

Yorkshire Terrier Club of America (Awards)

Originally Posted by Woogie Man (Post 3267942)

This argument could go on forever. It's like a dog chasing its tail. No one knows what would happen if he actually caught it.

What I see lately with this argument is that it's getting more strident. (Some) parti breeders are coming on offering 'proof' of the parti's legitimacy when no real proof is possible. DNA only proves parentage and Mars testing is only to discern what breeds are present in a mixed breed dog. It's all a moot point, really, since variations have not been allowed for many years. The recent recognition by AKC can't be seen as proof either. AKC is just a registry that has shown itself to be creative in building revenue (witness their association with millers) and Parti registration is just another source of revenue. It doesn't constitute proof or legitimacy to the partis.

The historical references don't hold any weight in my mind either. So what if this or that trait is present in a Yorkshire terrier. There are many traits still being expressed in these dogs that are not to the breed standard. They are all true historical traits in the breed but don't fit the standard so shouldn't be bred for. Why have a standard at all if all random traits are given the blessing of the parent club? The basis for the parti argument is the same as could be made for oversize, flop ear, wire coat, roach back or off colors of any type. if you sanction these traits, all you're left with over time is some generic terrier type dog.....a terrier stew. The standard for any breed is written to weed out traits and produce an identifiable 'breed'.

I think what gets the hackles up of purists (and this is JMO) is the things being said of late. We hear "we're not going away so get used to it", "what are you afraid of", "you're a bunch of hypocrites", "we'll breed partis back to standard dogs and put carriers in the ring" and on and on. Not exactly the way to get things done and why should anyone be surprised at the response to that? These statements do bring into question just how well understood is the genetics of breeding and is there much thought given to the betterment of the breed.

I KNOW there are sincere devoted parti breeders. That isn't the point. The point is what could this do to a breed that is already in trouble. I don't think you can just brush off the criticisms as some of the strongest ones comes from those with many many years of devotion to the breed. Can you assume they are wrong until you have chalked up an equal number of years of experience, study and hard work? I can't say I have that many years but I do see the sense in preserving a standard.

Since it's been a very long time that a variety class has been added, I think the whole thing is mostly an exercise in egos and all this arguing serves no purpose. I do think if parti breeders want to continue, and do care about preserving the Yorkshire Terrier, that they will only breed parti to parti. If they did that, it would keep the lines separated and would at least maintain the status quo. To repeat myself from an earlier post, "east is east and west is west, and never the twain shall meet".

I hope we can stop all this arguing and nip all these bad feelings brewing in the bud. This serves no purpose as we all know by now each other's feelings. I do wish that anyone that's breeding off standard dogs of any type, whether by convenience or design, would ask themselves whether or not thieir breeding contributes to the betterment of the breed.

Originally Posted by Elle (Post 3268185)

LS doesn't work this way. A registry wouldn't be useful.

Originally Posted by Breezeaway (Post 3268186)

Who could not love a face like this?:)

Originally Posted by Elle (Post 3268205)

Your opinion means nothing to me and hundreds of thousands of people that care about the history and future of the breed.

It's just your opinion to me because I don't want to buy a puppy. :rolleyes:


Here's more information on this parti dog.

Yorkshire Terrier Club of America (Awards)

Originally Posted by Breezeaway (Post 3268186)

Who could not love a face like this?:)

Originally Posted by Elle (Post 3268205)

Your opinion means nothing to me and hundreds of thousands of people that care about the history and future of the breed.

It's just your opinion to me because I don't want to buy a puppy. :rolleyes:


Here's more information on this parti dog.

Yorkshire Terrier Club of America (Awards)

Originally Posted by Cares4Dogs (Post 3268259)

what year was the yorkie standard written?

Originally Posted by Breezeaway (Post 3268266)

Which one? The one in England or the one in the US?

Originally Posted by Breezeaway (Post 3268277)

I think the YTCA was formed in 1951

Originally Posted by Breezeaway (Post 3268286)

Remember the standard applies to an entire dog.
Color is important in a standard, but not to the exclusion of all else or the breed will suffer for it.

Originally Posted by Breezeaway (Post 3268293)

A few months back our club was doing some statistics on Parti color in the yorkie. I contacted AKC and ask for a report in the number of parti color yorkies that had been registered with AKC since the year 2000 to this year.
AKC told me it would cost $200.00 for that report. I agreed to it. Then guess what, YTCA put a stop to it. So then AKC tells me they cant send it unless the YTCA approves. Needless to say we didn't get it even after i ask YTCA to allow us to have it. How can we research the parti when the YTCA is the parent club but they will not let us have access to anything concerning the parti?
Why is the YTCA so scared of the Parti? What is it going to hurt for us to get an accurate count?

Originally Posted by Breezeaway (Post 3268266)

Which one? The one in England or the one in the US?

Originally Posted by Breezeaway (Post 3268300)

How can we trace down the lines that the parti has shown up in? What color were the parents? Without records we are sort of limited and YTCA likes like that.